12 Leaders The Economist January 22nd 2022
T
hey toredown the statue and rolleditintoBristolharbour,
and none of them denied it. Yet this month a jury in England
acquitted four people over the toppling of a likeness of Edward
Colston, an English philanthropist and leading slavetrader who
died in 1721. Part of the case for the defence was unusual for a
courtroom, and revealing of the intellectual mood in Britain and
beyond. The real offence, said the accused, was that the monu
ment to such a monster was still standing. Facing criminal char
ges, they made an argument about art, and about history.
In an era of rising nationalism and seething partisanship,
some borders—including those between countries and political
camps—can seem to be hardening. But others are blurring, such
as between politics and culture, statecraft and
stagecraft. When the news vies for attention
with entertainment, and is relished as meme
and soap opera, entertainers have a political
edge—and from France to Ukraine, television
personalities have exploited it. Poets may no
longer be the unacknowledged legislators of
the world, but activist sports stars and outspo
ken children’s authors have a pretty big say.
The substance of public debate has evolved with the person
nel, not least in the erosion of another distinction, between the
present and the past. Witness the saga of Colston, who splashed
back into the news 300 years after his death. A decade ago, the
idea that Conservative ministers might lambast the National
Trust, staid steward of English country houses—as they have
over its interest in slavery and colonialism—would have seemed
outlandish. (So, to American voters, would one run for the White
House by the star of “The Apprentice”, let alone two.) Whoever
controls the past may indeed control the future, but from the
streets of postimperial Britain to the school boards of America,
they have a fight on their hands first. Disputesoverwhosehistory is told, how and by whom, in
part reflect a struggle over claims on power and virtue today.
Adherents of “cancel culture”, that dismal oxymoron, believe
some people, living and dead, are too discredited to be heard at
all. In these rolling culture wars, The Economisthas no fixed side.
But neither are we neutral. Our liberal principles suggest that
controversial voices should generally be audible—and that
some statues should come down.
Keeneyed readers of our contents page will notice a small
token of this shift in the intellectual climate. Our Books & Arts
section has been renamed Culture and enlarged: two signs of the
breadth of subjects it aims to cover. We will still review books
and write about artists. But, even more than be
fore, we will trace trends and draw out connec
tions across the arts and beyond (including in
Back Story, our new culture column).
Culture’s role in politics is not the only way
it has become more salient. During lockdown,
stories on the page and screen have offered vic
arious adventures, and a sense of solidarity in
adversity, to people across the world. Even as
theatres and galleries closed, the technology of culture has de
veloped to match this craving. If covid19 has coloured the expe
rience of the arts, meanwhile, in time the reverse will also be
true: writers and artists will shape how the pandemic is under
stood and remembered, and we will be watching.
Our Culture section will try to sate another sort of appetite
and crumble one final distinction. Cuisine embodies customs
and change and is a vital aspect of culture—as our regular fea
ture, World in a dish, will explore. As this week’s morsel shows,
food can be a solace even in bleak times, as can a newspaper. Or,
as Herman Melville put it in “Moby Dick”: “If youcangetnothing
better out of the world, get a good dinner out of it.”nOur new Culture section is a sign of the timesFood for thought
Culture and its discontentsAt the same time Beijing has taken steps to revive the broader
economy. It has sped up some of the “mega” publicinvestment
projects outlined in its latest fiveyear plan and encouraged lo
cal governments to issue more infrastructure bonds. The central
bank has also cut interest rates.
In contrast to its macroeconomic pragmatism, China re
mains zealously committed to its hardline approach to the pan
demic. It celebrates its success as proof of its superior social
model. That could prevent the fresh thinking it will need as the
pandemic evolves. Even before Omicron arrived, the risks of a
zerocovid strategy were clear. In December, after local officials
in Xi’an, a central city of 13m people, failed to stop an outbreak of
the Delta variant quickly enough, the entire city was placed in a
lockdown so strict that it led to food shortages. Both Samsung
and Micron, which make chips in the city, said output would be
affected. China’s sporadic restrictions have also inhibited con
sumer spending: after inflation, retail sales shrank in December,
compared with a year ago.
The Omicron variant will make zerocovid ever harder to sus
tain. There will be more cases. Each case will put a wider circle ofpeople at risk. And infections may remain undetected for longer
because more cases are mild or asymptomatic. Disruption,
therefore, will become more frequent. Mass testing in the port
city of Tianjin in response to an Omicron outbreak this month
forced Toyota and Volkswagen to pause carmaking in the city.
China cannot ditch zerocovid overnight, but it ought to find
a route out before the costs become extreme. It should abandon
its vaccine nationalism and approve Western mrnajabs that of
fer the most protection. It needs good antiviral drugs and to pre
pare a weak hospital system to cope with the wave of serious ill
ness that will inevitably occur when a variant, even a milder one,
eventually spreads through the population.
China’s approach to both property and the pandemic reflect
its “campaign style” of governing, which rallies cadres to en
force slogans and pronouncements from the top. Such cam
paigns can develop an unfortunate momentum of their own. In
recent weeks the government has woken up to the danger that
its overzealous efforts to restrain the property market might
sink the economy. It should now cometothe same realisation
about how it is fighting the pandemic.n